The welfare state has directly led to our collapsing society.

Earlier articles in this series explained that conservatives
believe
we ought not to try social ideas that are known not to work.
Progressive politicians' ideas always sound
wonderful, but
they've all been tried before. Each generation of liberals
claims
that they're smarter than previous generations and their wonderful
ideas will work this time, but we know better. That's why we
oppose
most liberal programs.

The Evils of Welfare

Forbes
magazine recently published an article telling conservatives what to do
about the gender gap, pointing out that far more women had voted for
Mr. Obama than for Mr. Romney. Forbes suggested
that conservatives
point out that economic growth benefits women more than increased
government handouts benefit them and suggest that women should vote
for candidates who understand how to generate growth.

It's true that economic growth benefits women more than government
spending does, but Forbes'
advice ignores many generations of natural
selection. It's always been easy for women to become
pregnant,
but women have never been able to raise children to maturity without
help.

A nursing mother can gather carbohydrates from plants, but she
can't hunt because a crying baby will scare the animals she's trying
to catch. The protein she needs for successful pregnancy
comes from
men who hunt.

A farm wife has a full-time job preparing the food that comes into the
house. There was baking day, wash day,
and other days
full of endless toil. A woman simply couldn't survive without
a man
providing the raw materials that went into feeding her and her
offspring.

A woman's reproductive success depended on persuading someone to take
care of her and her children. Natural selection favored women
who
were best able to focus on finding someone who'd provide care.

Depending on Men

Society traditionally assigned the role of feeding women to husbands,
but that made women dependent on men, and modern women have decided
they don't like that. As women became involved in politics,
they favored government
programs that covered more and more of their costs raising children.

What did Mr. Obama promise? Free contraception, free
abortions,
affordable, high quality day care, paid maternity leave, and other
ways for society overall to pay the costs of a woman's reproductive
choices instead of depending on one individual husband per each
reproducing woman.

Having society pay her costs means a woman doesn't have to find a
husband to get an apartment and child care; she only has to get
pregnant because the welfare system picks up her costs.

This doesn't work as well as liberals claim because a welfare check is
no substitute for a father. We're now raising our 3rd and 4th
generation of fatherless kids. Conservatives don't need
sociological
studies to know how that turns out; we can find out by reading
newspapers.

The problem is that although mothers can do a decent job of early
child care, it takes a father to force a teen-age son to behave
properly and grow up into a civilized citizen as opposed to a
barbarian.

In all human societies, the father is regarded by tradition
as
indispensable ... no child should be brought into the world without a
man - and one man at that - assuming the role of sociological father,
that is, guardian and protector, the male link between the
child
and the rest of the community. [emphasis
added]

Without fathers to tie them to society, young men are prone to get in
trouble. More than half the young men in welfare ghettos are
in
prison, on parole, or in other trouble with law enforcement, and the
overwhelming majority of these have no fathers in their lives or,
often, any adult males at all.

In cities such as Detroit and Baltimore where the welfare culture has
come to full flower, crime drives citizens elsewhere.
Population in
these cities is shrinking so fast that vacant lots are being converted
to farming.

The War on Blacks

The phenomenon of family disintegration has been particularly visible
in the black community. In his article "Liberalism Versus
Blacks,"
the great black economist and writer Dr. Thomas
Sowell wrote:

The black family survived centuries of slavery and
generations of Jim
Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion
of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes
with two
parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent
today.

Although the welfare system destroyed black families first, the New
York Times reports that most of the babies being born to
white
mothers under 30 are being
born out of wedlock. A child
born into a
single-parent home has an 80% greater chance of growing up in poverty
than a child with two parents. By encouraging fatherless
births,
the welfare system multiplies child proverty.

The women who voted for our welfare system have created a
situation of multi-generation child poverty. Women want to be
taken
care of, however, so it's unlikely that they'll change their voting
patterns just because these programs don't work. Liberals who
gain votes from welfare recipients or from women who want more
government goodies certainly won't change their
programs - they
work just fine keeping them in power, which is all they care about even
as society collapses around them.

Conservatives, though, care about the generations yet to come
as well as generations past, and we don't like to see the rising tide
of barbarism. When it comes right down to it, most people
would rather live in a well-ordered civilized world than the "mean
streets" or anarchy of a fallen empire.

In fact, as America's census has shown for years, individual
people
and families tend to leave the states that most exemplify blue-state
liberalism such as California and New York and move to safe, orderly,
economically successful, conservatively-governed red states like Texas.
Unfortunately, as soon as they arrive, they start voting for
the same liberal policies that drove their old home to ruin.

Think baseball for crying out loud...and honestly I have Justice Roberts to thank for driving this point home.IF we are indeed about smaller, limited Gov...then we must be about the small ball game.

Which means this: In all things dicey, go back to the spirit of the 10th amendment. (state) Keep the fed simple.Let the states decide the course of action on issues which the states ought to be deciding.

The candidate need to Swat down (meaning not even field any question) for issues such as gay marriage or abortion...and instead just saying "Look...what the state you live in says, I will allow...I feel the 10th has a place." (or something to that effect) Boom...headshot, the candidate is INSTANTLY not for anything, but certainly against nothing which is NOT covered by the constitution. (raise taxes all you like in your state...kill the unborn all you like, in your state...call a dog and a cat living in the same house a civil union for all I care...none of that is a Federal Matter...it is a state problem...and let the localities argue it out)

The Left has done a brilliant job of painting conservatives, libertarians, and constitutionalists as a bunch of theocratic anocapitalists and anarchists. (or laise faire types) (forgive my spelling...I was at work for most of the day)

See it is of my observation that the "left" and the "right" argue 2 different points from the exact different areas. In all things. (Hear me out for the explanation of the obvious.) Left argues bottom up for economics. Right argues top down. So why not argue Bottom up (and LOUDLY DEFINE WHAT BOTTOM UP IS in a political arena) for politics...which means each higher level refers down to the lower (aka local level) argument/decision.

If the conservatives would ONLY just leave moral decisions to the localities instead of the fed. Quit getting sucked into these quagmires. Let the locals figure that out.